If republicans get a significant majority will they repeal Obama health care reform?

This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

View Poll Results: If republicans get a significant majority will they repeal Obama health care reform?

Re: If republicans get a significant majority will they repeal Obama health care refo

Originally Posted by Objective Voice

I'll ask again, what part of the Constitution has been "shredded" concerning this health care legistlation?

It seems to be centered around the issue of whether or not the federal government has the authority to force people to buy a specific product or not.

"God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."-C G Jung

Re: If republicans get a significant majority will they repeal Obama health care refo

Interesting fact - the law that just passed contains a large justification for the insurance requirement section right there in the law. They obviously anticipated this debate:

SEC. 1501. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.

(a) Findings- Congress makes the following findings:

(1) IN GENERAL- The individual responsibility requirement provided for in this section (in this subsection referred to as the `requirement') is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce, as a result of the effects described in paragraph (2).

(2) EFFECTS ON THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE- The effects described in this paragraph are the following:

(A) The requirement regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature: economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased.

(B) Health insurance and health care services are a significant part of the national economy. National health spending is projected to increase from $2,500,000,000,000, or 17.6 percent of the economy, in 2009 to $4,700,000,000,000 in 2019. Private health insurance spending is projected to be $854,000,000,000 in 2009, and pays for medical supplies, drugs, and equipment that are shipped in interstate commerce. Since most health insurance is sold by national or regional health insurance companies, health insurance is sold in interstate commerce and claims payments flow through interstate commerce.

(C) The requirement, together with the other provisions of this Act, will add millions of new consumers to the health insurance market, increasing the supply of, and demand for, health care services. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the requirement will increase the number and share of Americans who are insured.

(D) The requirement achieves near-universal coverage by building upon and strengthening the private employer-based health insurance system, which covers 176,000,000 Americans nationwide. In Massachusetts, a similar requirement has strengthened private employer-based coverage: despite the economic downturn, the number of workers offered employer-based coverage has actually increased.

(E) Half of all personal bankruptcies are caused in part by medical expenses. By significantly increasing health insurance coverage, the requirement, together with the other provisions of this Act, will improve financial security for families.

(F) Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.), and this Act, the Federal Government has a significant role in regulating health insurance which is in interstate commerce.

(G) Under sections 2704 and 2705 of the Public Health Service Act (as added by section 1201 of this Act), if there were no requirement, many individuals would wait to purchase health insurance until they needed care. By significantly increasing health insurance coverage, the requirement, together with the other provisions of this Act, will minimize this adverse selection and broaden the health insurance risk pool to include healthy individuals, which will lower health insurance premiums. The requirement is essential to creating effective health insurance markets in which improved health insurance products that are guaranteed issue and do not exclude coverage of pre-existing conditions can be sold.

(H) Administrative costs for private health insurance, which were $90,000,000,000 in 2006, are 26 to 30 percent of premiums in the current individual and small group markets. By significantly increasing health insurance coverage and the size of purchasing pools, which will increase economies of scale, the requirement, together with the other provisions of this Act, will significantly reduce administrative costs and lower health insurance premiums. The requirement is essential to creating effective health insurance markets that do not require underwriting and eliminate its associated administrative costs.

(3) SUPREME COURT RULING- In United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association (322 U.S. 533 (1944)), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that insurance is interstate commerce subject to Federal regulation.

Re: If republicans get a significant majority will they repeal Obama health care refo

Originally Posted by misterman

Interesting fact - the law that just passed contains a large justification for the insurance requirement section right there in the law. They obviously anticipated this debate:

Yeah well, their anticipation doesn't fulfill their desire for justification. The very first line is built on a false assumption:

(1) IN GENERAL- The individual responsibility requirement provided for in this section (in this subsection referred to as the `requirement') is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce, as a result of the effects described in paragraph (2).

There's no provision in the bill that opens insurance companies to do business across state lines. Therefore, there is no interstate commerce influence.

They can anticipate all they want but that doesn't mean their arguments will stick in a court of law.

Re: If republicans get a significant majority will they repeal Obama health care refo

Originally Posted by misterman

Of course there is. It's the central premise of the bill!

Regulation of the insurance companies themselves is applicable because they do interstate commerce. However, if I am not buying insurance across state lines (because currently, you can't AND the new bill does not open that up), my activity cannot be regulated by the Feds under the interstate commerce provision. The state may regulate me, but the fed has no authority.

Re: If republicans get a significant majority will they repeal Obama health care refo

Originally Posted by misterman

It's not that simple, but I don't think a healthy 25-year-old would be charged "several thousand dollars" for insurance.

According to Kaiser, insurance for a 25 year old single guy is over $3k. Regardless, the point is that I don't see anything that would prevent healthy people from doing just what I described, whether they're 25 and healthy or 55 and healthy.

Originally Posted by misterman

Interesting fact - the law that just passed contains a large justification for the insurance requirement section right there in the law. They obviously anticipated this debate:

Not sure what part of that justifies it, as opposed to simply saying that they think it's important. As to the reference to Southeastern Underwriters, whoever put that in there has a set of brass balls the size of oranges. Setting aside the fact that the question of whether interstate commerce can be regulated is entirely unrelated as to the question of whether participation in commerce can be mandated, here's the first line of the syllabus in the case they cite as support for their argument:

1. A fire insurance company which conducts a substantial part of its business transactions across state lines is engaged in "commerce among the several States," and subject to regulation by Congress under the Commerce Clause.

Re: If republicans get a significant majority will they repeal Obama health care refo

The chutzpah to claim that this proves that Congress can require individuals to engage in that commerce is unbelievable.

Right...if an insurance company has a parent office in Delaware but several subsidiaries doing business under different names exclusively in their individual states, does that fall under interstate commerce at all or is just intrastate commerce still since the subsidiaries are, for instance Parent Company dba State Office?

Re: If republicans get a significant majority will they repeal Obama health care refo

Originally Posted by jallman

Regulation of the insurance companies themselves is applicable because they do interstate commerce. However, if I am not buying insurance across state lines (because currently, you can't AND the new bill does not open that up), my activity cannot be regulated by the Feds under the interstate commerce provision. The state may regulate me, but the fed has no authority.

The central premise is false.

Wrong. Unless it changed dramatically in recent weeks, the law will allow sales of insurance across state lines.